Periodic review of suspension orders and the limitation of three months for the currency of a suspension order if the charges are not served, as established in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary.

ORDER

1. Issue notice.

2. In view of the short controversy involved in the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to direct Mr. Pushpendra Singh Naruka, learned counsel to accept notices on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order impugned dated 15.12.2020, the petitioner, a Head Constable, was placed under suspension on account of his arrest in a case by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Tonk but, even after lapse of more than a year, the suspension order has not been reviewed.

4. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, learned counsel submitted that the respondents are required to review the order of suspension periodically and prays that the respondents be directed to revisit the order dated 15.12.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer and submits that they would review the suspension order dated 15.12.2020 within a period of four weeks.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) has held as under:-

'21.We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adquately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.'

7. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties as also the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to review the order dated 15.12.2020 within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of this Court order.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.